ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation

May 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are entertaining a differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s. In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Document Everything! Always! No Exceptions! (AKA, Help Your Lawyer Help You!)

April 14, 2026 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
I had a case last year in which once again I found myself thinking: if only my client had better documented the verbal agreements, we would have had a much easier time defending his work. I know this is often easier said than done— you are in the middle of building a project, and you get a call, and you need to keep the project moving. No time for written change directives or a special bulletin. And yet—it is simply amazing to me the number of people who develop “litigation amnesia” about things when a lawsuit is involved. Your documentation system does not need to be perfect. You can use a simple Field notebook and handwritten notations. A text memo to yourself or, better yet, an email confirmation to the owner/contractor/whoever. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss

April 20, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026). Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds. Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Balancing the Right to Repair With Evidence Preservation in Construction Defect Litigation

April 20, 2026 — Benton Wheatley & Anna Spicer - Construction Executive
Every major construction project comes with risk, whether it’s a warehouse build, a multifamily development or a major renovation. Parties tend to be aligned when things are proceeding as planned. But when something goes wrong—cracked concrete, water intrusion, systems that don’t perform as expected—those interests can quickly diverge. Property owners are often caught in the middle when construction defects surface. They’re expected to act quickly to limit damage and costs. But they also have legal obligations to preserve evidence and allow potentially responsible parties, such as contractors or designers, to observe testing, demolition and repairs. Additionally, owners often have duties to lenders and investors to fix problems promptly and pursue claims against those responsible. Meanwhile, contractors and other parties have obligations of their own—not to interfere with repairs and not to delay mitigation efforts while investigations are underway. What follows will examine how those competing responsibilities play out in construction defect disputes. Reprinted courtesy of Benton Wheatley & Anna Spicer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Trend Continues Where Unlicensed Contractors Have No Recourse

July 13, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There’s been a recent trend in Florida case law that has figuratively “killed” unlicensed contractors. Here’s another one. The moral to this trend and case is simple: make sure you have the proper licenses prior to serving as a contractor under Florida law. Trying to be cute, as seemed to be the situation in this case with a creative argument, is not an argument that will carry the day and your resources will be devoted to being creative versus the ultimate merits of the dispute. In Ramindesign, LLC v. Skarzynski, 2026 WL 1649571 (S.D.Fla. 2026) an owner of real property hired a company to design and construct a spec home on the property. The company and its owner were NOT licensed contractors. The contract stated the company was serving as a “spec developer” and referred to it as the contractor throughout the contract. Other than this, the contract was set up as a cost plus a fee. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

4th Department Narrowly Interprets Professional Services

August 11, 2026 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Cty. of Erie v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2026 NY Slip Op 04092 (App. Div. 4th Dept.), New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that a general liability carrier for a construction manager owed additional insured coverage to the County of Erie, notwithstanding an exclusion in the construction manager’s policy for injuries arising out of professional services. The underlying case involved injuries sustained when the underlying plaintiff fell off of her bicycle at a park owned by the County when she transitioned from the pavement edge to grass. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

Texas Voids Out-of-State Forum and Choice of Law Clauses in Construction Contracts

March 17, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman - Snell & Wilmer
The Texas Legislature amended statutes impacting construction contracts for projects located in Texas to declare any forum selection clause or choice of law provision “void as against public policy,” and mandate venue for any litigation or arbitration shall be in the Texas county in which the work is performed. The parties may stipulate to a different venue only after the dispute arises. Forum selection clauses and choice of law provisions are common in construction contracts. Frequently, general contractors based in other jurisdictions require subcontractors to sign contracts designating the contractor’s preferred venue for any dispute. These contracts may also select the law of another state to govern the contract. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com

---